America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

There have been two white supremacist rallies in Charlottesville recently and the past few months have been filled with discussions about the removal of memorials honoring Confederate military and government figures.

Should memorials erected to honor the acts and individuals who fought for the Confederacy be taken down (and, possibly, moved to places like museums?)

Are all people who want to take the statues down Antifa people? No, of course not. Are all people who want to leave the statues up ipso facto white supremacist people? No, I don't think so. For reasons I've explained a couple of times above.

I've never stated that all people who want the statues up are white supremacist people, so that means nothing to my argument. And nothing you've stated alters what Confederate symbols mean... you've only talked about how white people have made themselves more comfortable... of course, they were never the uncomfortable ones to begin with when it came to slavery.

The Civil War was about secession. Think about it. Going off on a tangent is just an attempt to rewrite history. "Cry Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war."

The attempt by the left to take down Confederate Monuments by mob action is anarchy. It should be handled lawfully, not like vandals. The current political climate leads me to believe that the left is attempting a noisy coup, constantly offended no matter which way the wind blows.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?

It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

The New England states were talking about seceding during the War of 1812, and Madison secretly sent in troops in order to put that down if it had occurred. Jackson defeating the British made it a moot point. The New England states had actually conspired with the British, which should have been treason.

States were fairly autonomous at the time. The Kentucky Resolutions could be used to nullify what a state considered an unconstitutional law. Many states didn't recognize the United States having authority over secession since it wasn't granted in the Constitution. It's ironic that there are hints the left coast is murmuring about secession now.

The United States considered their power over secession was settled after they won the war. In Texas v. White in 1869, secession was made null by judicial decree. So the land of the free uses power to keep their states in the Union. Another bit of irony, setting slavery aside for a moment, it didn't seem that the United States believed in self-determination any more, and it appears that an indivisible Union is the operative phrase here. It seems like the states didn't like the revolution requirement or the union of states having the right to decide if their membership was permanent.

As another aside, I'm in no way defending or justifying slavery of any type here. I'm just opposed to the steady drum beat of an endless stream of intolerances seized on by the left, that will not end well for the country. One set up after another in an attempt to knock the President off the rails. It doesn't matter whether or how he responds, The left and/or the media will attempt to blitz him. I expect he's playing the media in order to keep them off balance. They always seem to think they have him just where they want him.

I'm pretty confident those Confederate Monuments have no power to enslave anyone, but they sure seem to throw some people off kilter, or they pretend to be easily offended. It seems the left only believes in the Freedom of Speech if it's their speech, or as long as it doesn't offend them. Not really what the Freedom of Speech means, I expect.

The South of 2017 is not the same culture of the South in 1950 which was not the same as the culture of the South in 1885. Just as other cultures have changed (Sweden isn't a land of Vikings anymore, and France isn't the society of the guillotine, and Maoris no longer do what Maoris used to).

Per symbols, I gave my husband a Che shirt for Christmas a couple of years back (intended it to be a gag gift). He loved it. Wore it all the time (well, not in his current job he had to put that way back in the closet since he started back on active duty but he'll wear it again when he retires). He's not a Communist. He's pretty much the opposite of a communist.

Yeah but Che is and has always been a man that exemplifies struggle against oppression. Its the Right that fights to make tarnish that into something he was not. Just as the Right continues to tarnish the term communist to a philosophy that it is not. But I digress and I'm not here to send this debate of the rails.

You are correct that the south is not the same culture, well not exactly the same, but that doesn't define how much its changed either, (Entspeak beats me to the punch again) that's not the point. In fact, its an avoidance of the points. If the culture of 2017 is not the same as 1885 or 1950, why are these symbols of racism still being memorialized? I mean you still had DECADES! The 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the... well I don't know what to call 2000-2010... but there you have it.

What are we holding on to? What is the resistance? You haven't made argument that these symbols are no longer symbols of racism, so I don't wan to put words in your mouth. I am trying to understand what you are saying when you say society has changed?

Because it seems to me that society has changed so much that when ever Blacks protest racial injustice, the modern moderate conservatives are either silent or speak up against the protest.

QUOTE(Lone Wisdom)

It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

The New England states were talking about seceding during the War of 1812, and Madison secretly sent in troops in order to put that down if it had occurred. Jackson defeating the British made it a moot point. The New England states had actually conspired with the British, which should have been treason.

More avoidance... What did they secede for? The question is why, what was the chief motivation? Because that motivation is what they were fighting for, what they were killing for, and what they were dying for. And yes, like EVERY war, I'm sure there were thousands of people that fought for the confederates that fought for their own individual reasons. Fame, Glory, Pride, Nationalism, Wealth, Family, Friends, etc

QUOTE

As another aside, I'm in no way defending or justifying slavery of any type here. I'm just opposed to the steady drum beat of an endless stream of intolerances seized on by the left, that will not end well for the country. One set up after another in an attempt to knock the President off the rails. It doesn't matter whether or how he responds, The left and/or the media will attempt to blitz him. I expect he's playing the media in order to keep them off balance. They always seem to think they have him just where they want him.

I'm pretty confident those Confederate Monuments have no power to enslave anyone, but they sure seem to throw some people off kilter, or they pretend to be easily offended. It seems the left only believes in the Freedom of Speech if it's their speech, or as long as it doesn't offend them. Not really what the Freedom of Speech means, I expect.

Couple of things. Mrs P mentioned this too. There is no mass hysteria going on in the left. The election of Trump is not hysteria. Nationalism is so much on the rise the McCain felt a need to speak out against it. Under the guise of White Nationalism is a crap load of racism. Everyone talks about how Trump beat Hillary and seem to forget how he beat out all the "modern moderate conservatives" too.

Still there is no hysteria. That how some people on the right are characterizing the lefts resistance to your message... but lets talk about that.

Lone Wisdom what is the message? You type at your keyboard and state that the left only believes in freedom of speech when its their speech, well what speech are they drowning out or preventing? What message is the right trying to get out that the left is trying to stop? You are correct, people on the left do want to take down monuments, what speech or message is the left intolerant of? What's your opinion?

That above question goes for anyone here on this issue? I'll wait for more direct answers, but more than likely, more non-answers and obfuscation is to follow. And here is why, even though culture in the south and in America as a whole has changed, some of it is still the same. There are Americans, not some small minute minority either, I'd say over 40 percent that still fight for White supremacy. No they don't where hoods, they don't use the "N-word", they actually do have friends,(best friends) and family that are minorities, sometimes they are minorities and, all the same, they fight for White supremacy in this country.

The left is intolerant, whoever thought we weren't, I'm not sure. But like I tell my children, be careful of people that try to equate things incorrectly. We aren't intolerant of free speech, we believe in it. We have heard and we understand the message. We are intolerant of a message that goes against the ideals of equality and justice for all. The reason why there is so much dodging, obfuscation, avoidance

I am not condoning the actions of ANTIFA, but I won't condemn them either. Too long and too many times through history have many Whites sat on the sideline while other Whites abused fellow American citizens. Watching White people take fist to face of White racists, nationalist, extremist, terrorist, or whatever flavor you want to call them, is uplifting to me as a Black man. ANTIFA followers are acting violently and that is sad, but they are acting violently and intolerant to the ideals of White supremacy and that is something to be hopeful about. Because like I tell my friends, regardless of how much you might think Blacks or even Latinos need to do better as individuals, we as a group can't do better while institutional racism is allowed to exist. Sure as individuals, one here and one there, we minorities can escape poverty and the cyclic degeneration caused by institutional racism, but as a group, minorities will never have the equality (whether we are talking about actual or equality of opportunity) as long as we have systemic racism. We are called minorities for a reason, because we are minority race so we can't change the laws and norms that allow for systemic racism without the help of fellow White citizens. We need our fellow countrymen, who more than not, are leftist and idealists to help us fight this wave, of racism and nationalism.

And that is not hysteria, just an opinionated observation on my part. But maybe i'm wrong so let me ask again so that this is the last part of my post. What is the message\speech we are conveying by leaving these monument of the confederacy up?

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?

It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

South Carolina was the first to secede. In its declaration of reasons for seceding, it refers to the an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery and the resulting laws passed in non-slaveholding states as the reason for seceding.

In a correspondence from a South Carolinian congressman to civic leaders in Virginia at the time, this was stated:

QUOTE

In the great and momentous movement which our people have been able to make with unprecedented unanimity, after years of insult, robbery and patience, we have not been unmindful of the character and interests of your noble Old Dominion, whose warriors, statesmen and patriots have cast a lustre over her sisters identical in interest with her, and, in my judgment, soon to be identified with us in a common destiny, absolved from all ties with enemies who, in violation of every obligation which should have been sacred to the memory of a common ancestry, would murder our citizens, burn our houses, and poison even our women and children.

It is a source of unfeigned joy to me to believe, as I do, that "Virginia yet in time will surely stand like South Carolina, a free, sovereign and independent State, ready to unite with her Southern sisters."

I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins.

We, of South Carolina, hope soon to great you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges and honor left us by our ancestors.

That last line sounds like it could have come out of Richard Spencer's mouth - that is how unchanged the idea of white supremacy is.

The Civil War was about secession because of slavery and white supremacy. And, as I pointed out earlier, the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy was slavery and white supremacy - this was explicitly stated by the Confederate government. Confederate symbols and monuments represent, are celebrations of, and commemorations of slavery, white supremacy, actions taken in support of that aim, and individuals who fought to maintain it. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.

Yeah but Che is and has always been a man that exemplifies struggle against oppression. Its the Right that fights to make tarnish that into something he was not. Just as the Right continues to tarnish the term communist to a philosophy that it is not. But I digress and I'm not here to send this debate of the rails.

I'm glad you're stopping there because I hope it's understood that Che himself is not the point. The point is, people assign meanings to things for different reasons.Sometimes the meaning might even be intentionally ironic.

QUOTE

And that is not hysteria, just an opinionated observation on my part. But maybe i'm wrong so let me ask again so that this is the last part of my post. What is the message\speech we are conveying by leaving these monument of the confederacy up?

Well, I thought the intent is: History. Historical figures are often portrayed on monuments and statues. I got that impression because these items (as mentioned earlier) are noted as historically important items that deserve preservation. Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.

Edited to add: Here is one such placeI think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away. Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.

Uh... yep, the South wanted to secede. Why did they want to secede? What was the reason given by, I believe, pretty much all of the states who wanted to secede?

It was about secession. Slavery was not illegal in the southern states at the time. Should have been, but it wasn't. The attempt to end slavery came later in the war.

South Carolina was the first to secede. In its declaration of reasons for seceding, it refers to the an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery and the resulting laws passed in non-slaveholding states as the reason for seceding.

In a correspondence from a South Carolinian congressman to civic leaders in Virginia at the time, this was stated:

QUOTE

In the great and momentous movement which our people have been able to make with unprecedented unanimity, after years of insult, robbery and patience, we have not been unmindful of the character and interests of your noble Old Dominion, whose warriors, statesmen and patriots have cast a lustre over her sisters identical in interest with her, and, in my judgment, soon to be identified with us in a common destiny, absolved from all ties with enemies who, in violation of every obligation which should have been sacred to the memory of a common ancestry, would murder our citizens, burn our houses, and poison even our women and children.

It is a source of unfeigned joy to me to believe, as I do, that "Virginia yet in time will surely stand like South Carolina, a free, sovereign and independent State, ready to unite with her Southern sisters."

I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins.

We, of South Carolina, hope soon to great you in a Southern Confederacy, where white men shall rule our destinies, and from which we may transmit to our posterity the rights, privileges and honor left us by our ancestors.

That last line sounds like it could have come out of Richard Spencer's mouth - that is how unchanged the idea of white supremacy is.

The Civil War was about secession because of slavery and white supremacy. And, as I pointed out earlier, the "corner-stone" of the Confederacy was slavery and white supremacy - this was explicitly stated by the Confederate government. Confederate symbols and monuments represent, are celebrations of, and commemorations of slavery, white supremacy, actions taken in support of that aim, and individuals who fought to maintain it. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.

The reasons for the secession wouldn't have mattered, as I pointed out. There were, have been, and continue to be issues that led/lead States to consider secession. South Carolina had seceded, and demanded that the United States remove itself from Fort Sumter. The United States refused, hence becoming a foreign occupier.

If the United States was all about ending slavery, why stop with the Confederate States? If a current State seceded without the approval of the other States, would the United States go to war to keep it subjugated? You are conflating the two issues. The reason for secession and secession.

The reasons for the secession wouldn't have mattered, as I pointed out.

Wouldn't have mattered to whom? They clearly mattered to the Confederates - or they wouldn't have seceded. Without the secessions, there would have been no Civil War, so clearly the reasons matter.

QUOTE

QUOTE

Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or has been lied to.

Really!?

Yes, really.

QUOTE

Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.

Clearly, one doesn't need to be a white supremacist in order to ignore white supremacy.

QUOTE

Edited to add: Here is one such placeI think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away. Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.

What a lovely sentiment - folks attached to their heritage, their history.

Yes, "attached" is correct.

Some feel that it is hallowed ground. In fact, one citizen used those very words...

R. Wayne Byrd - president of a chapter of the Heritage Preservation Associaton - said, during a city council meeting regarding the installation of the Arthur Ashe statue, that Monument Avenue was "hallowed ground" and that placing the statue elsewhere "would pay the proper tribute to a great athlete without violating the historic sensibilities of Richmond's Confederate-American population."

One has to wonder, what exactly is a Confederate-American?

Another person in a letter to the editor of the Richmond Dispatch wrote: "Ashe, by most accounts, was a nice guy and a good tennis player. I would stop short of calling him a 'hero' for being nice. A hero by most definitions is one who saves another's life. The addition of an Ashe statue would undermine the historic integrity of this famous street. The figures on Monument Avenue are heroes; this theme should be maintained. A tennis player joining the ranks of generals is simply ludicrous."

So, these treason reframed as heroism, as I said.

And another person called into a Richmond radio station to say, "We need to protect our heritage . . . We don't need blacks on Monument Avenue . . . They've taken over our city; they've tried to take over our government. If you've got daughters like I've got daughters, they're trying to take them over, too."

This blog also talks about the "Lost Cause" movement which led to the erecting of many of these statues. That was the reframing of the Confederacy and the Civil War as being something they weren't - honorable, and not about slavery and white supremacy.

You can also read there about the black opposition to putting Arthur Ashe on Monument Avenue... those folks aren't "attached" to it. They recognize it for what it is. So, when it comes to these symbols, who should win out in the end... the folks trying to rewrite history so as not to have to come to terms with either their own racism or the racist "heritage" of the South? Or the people who see these statues for what they are and for what they truly represent... something that shouldn't be celebrated or commemorated with a memorial. My thought is the latter.

I'm glad you're stopping there because I hope it's understood that Che himself is not the point. The point is, people assign meanings to things for different reasons.Sometimes the meaning might even be intentionally ironic.

Not the point I got, but now that you are saying that's the point, you get no argument from me, we are agreed. We all assign different meaning to the same thing for different reason. If more conservatives thought like this maybe they wouldn't be so offended when people kneel during the anthem in protest to racial injustice. I'm digressing again, aren't I?? I'll stop.

QUOTE

Well, I thought the intent is: History. Historical figures are often portrayed on monuments and statues. I got that impression because these items (as mentioned earlier) are noted as historically important items that deserve preservation. Maybe the people who run the National Register of Historic Places are a team of white supremacists. But I doubt it.

Don't doubt it, White supremacy comes in all sort of shapes, sizes, and flavors, ironically, like a box of chocolates. Like I said, you can fight for White supremacy and not even be White.

Let me ask you, do you see statues and streets named after Adolf Hitler and other prominent Nazis? Oh that's right Hitler wasn't American. Does Germany have statues of Hitler in the middle of city in front of judicial buildings in an effort to remember him? Do you know who Hitler is? Do most kids over 14 know who Hitler is?

I have no problem with keeping the names and the deeds of these confederates alive in books of history. I wouldn't mind a confederate Museum where we learn why these people fought to continue slavery. But that a loooooooong way from wanting to a whole avenue of these men riding gallantly on the back of horses, stand tall as pillars of inspiration in the middle of town square isn't it? Do you get the difference?

QUOTE

Edited to add: Here is one such placeI think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away. Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.

I know you do. And I am somewhat judging you on that. As I said, you are conservative but you are one of the most moderate of conservatives on this board.

And that last statement, exemplifies the uphill battle faced in fighting racism. You see I could ask you "why?" you think we would be losing something of value, but that doesn't matter. You are not alone. There are people further right than you that share it. There are people of different skin color than White that shares your viewpoint and the answer to "Why's" could be too many to try to counter.

Simple there are Americans that think the statues of American traitors, that fought to continue to enslave humans based on the color of their skin, are valuable... IS the point. This is the point that could show people how systemic racism works and how it corrupts us.

It doesn't make you a racist, it doesn't make you hate black people, and it doesn't make me hysterical.

Those men went to war, under the confederate flag, against their country, so that they could continue enslave human beings. Regardless what Lone Wisdom says, the reasons do matter. It is totally against the values and ideals of this country... supposedly. Those statues AT BEST are there to convey to people "they were men of honor on the wrong side of history, but not that bad" and AT WORST they are there to "the men were heroic patriots who lost a war, but they had it right" Either way the commemorative designation seek to redeem these men in both character and deed.

Edited to add: Here is one such placeI think we would lose something valuable if this were taken away. Certainly it seems worth visiting, and I can understand why a person might have an attachment to it over time particularly if one lived in that area.

I know you do. And I am somewhat judging you on that. As I said, you are conservative but you are one of the most moderate of conservatives on this board.

And that last statement, exemplifies the uphill battle faced in fighting racism. You see I could ask you "why?" you think we would be losing something of value, but that doesn't matter. You are not alone. There are people further right than you that share it. There are people of different skin color than White that shares your viewpoint and the answer to "Why's" could be too many to try to counter.

Simple there are Americans that think the statues of American traitors, that fought to continue to enslave humans based on the color of their skin, are valuable... IS the point. This is the point that could show people how systemic racism works and how it corrupts us.

Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable. I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.I also like the works of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing. It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too. Human history is replete with slavery and warfare. Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves. Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates? I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

But, yes (to continue on the Confederate statue issue specifically) I'm not alone. Here is a poll that asks the question (breaks it down by political ideologies, race, and so forth). Page 9.The majority (to include African Americans) in most every category either think they should remain, or are "unsure". That said, folks can be persuaded under heavy social influence**, so with some effort the majority (myself included) might eventually (over time) agree they should be removed.

Also noteworthy (perhaps more noteworthy given the course this conversation has been going)Page 12 shows the amount of support for the white supremacists, page 13 the nationalists, page 19 the KKK. It is as I mentioned to entspeak. Support for these movements is extremely, extremely low. Support is as low among the white population as it is in the black population.

Anyway, with that poll I'll bow out. I haven't much left to say (that I haven't stated before).

**I'll reiterate here something I mentioned above. Social influence works a number of ways, so while white nationalism is a very tiny movement (even fewer than the Satanists), the more people continue to act as if it’s a gigantic and important social force, the more likely the wackos will come. The disturbing trend to me is how much attention and validity folks are giving this group (ostensibly to "combat them").

Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable. I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.I also like the works of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing. It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too. Human history is replete with slavery and warfare. Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves. Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates? I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

No disagreement here, but again, it requires we pivot. Even if we were talking about our country, I don't think people seeking to tear down confederate monuments are talking about destroying the infrastructure that housed slaves, or infrastructure built by slaves. There may be some who seek that, but that's a little far for my taste. I think the distasteful thing that has us concerned is the previous and continued reverence to confederates that fought to continue slavery. Again, totally against the country ideals.

QUOTE

But, yes (to continue on the Confederate statue issue specifically) I'm not alone. Here is a poll that asks the question (breaks it down by political ideologies, race, and so forth). Page 9.The majority (to include African Americans) in most every category either think they should remain, or are "unsure". That said, folks can be persuaded under heavy social influence**, so with some effort the majority (myself included) might eventually (over time) agree they should be removed.

Also noteworthy (perhaps more noteworthy given the course this conversation has been going)Page 12 shows the amount of support for the white supremacists, page 13 the nationalists, page 19 the KKK. It is as I mentioned to entspeak. Support for these movements is extremely, extremely low. Support is as low among the white population as it is in the black population.

Anyway, with that poll I'll bow out. I haven't much left to say (that I haven't stated before).

Understandable. Its not my mission to badger you either. Like you say with time and discussion opinions can change. Like Obama and so many other leaders of change understand... it takes time. To say "change doesn't happen over night" is such an understatement. Our country takes 10 steps forward and 9 steps back when it comes to racial change.

Conservatism as a philosophy tends to take us back. The election of Trump is a step back. People angry at protest against racial injustice is a step back. Acceptable killing of unarmed minorities is a step back. Rise of these right wing nationalist movements are a step back. But like I told a coworker, the pendulum of society and change in society works that way. Its all good.

But the question I think you could ask yourself without any response in this thread needed. What made "them" wrong? When non slave owning Whites allowed slavery to exist in the south, why did they? Why did so many choose that side? When Jim Crow laws were put in place, why did so many White support them? Why did they think it was fair, why did they choose that side? These are philosophical questions, where the answers of yesterday, are still the answers of today, IMO. And those answers, IMO, are still the wrong answers.

Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable. I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.I also like the works of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing. It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too. Human history is replete with slavery and warfare. Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves. Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates? I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.

Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable. I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.I also like the works of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing. It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too. Human history is replete with slavery and warfare. Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves. Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates? I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.

There's also a distinction between the reputation of a leader in battle and the cause they were fighting for. Was Rommel less of a brilliant tactician because he fighting for the wrong cause? There's a distinction between how people viewed war and their leaders over time.

There's also a distinction between art and what it's representing. Most people don't see Confederate Monuments as defending slavery or white supremacists. I would hazard a guess that most people don't even know who or what is being represented by the monuments.

Most people have contradictory values and believe that all their causes are the most moral and just. Some people just need to be offended all the time, and they seem to be outraged that everyone around is not offended too.

Most people are probably too self-centered to care about other people's causes and they see those that take up controversial causes as crazy people tilting at windmills.

Well, I think a lot of historical things are valuable. I think the Roman colosseum is extremely valuable (more so than Confederate statues) and thousands upon thousands (of slaves, mostly) were tortured to death for entertainment purposes in there.I also like the works of slaves. Hundreds of thousands of slaves with little shovels were forced to dig that huge lake in the summer palace in Beijing. It's nice. I think they'd be losing something of value if they took that away too. Human history is replete with slavery and warfare. Barbary pirates were stealing Europeans for the slave trade about as long as we were importing slaves. Would I object to statues of Barbary pirates? I'm sure I wouldn't. I'd consider them to be a valuable part of history too.

Well, much like with the Example of Lizzie Borden's house, you are conflating historical places where terrible things happened with memorials built to celebrate and commemorate terrible acts in history as good, heroic things - there is a distinction there.

There's also a distinction between the reputation of a leader in battle and the cause they were fighting for. Was Rommel less of a brilliant tactician because he fighting for the wrong cause? There's a distinction between how people viewed war and their leaders over time.

There's also a distinction between art and what it's representing. Most people don't see Confederate Monuments as defending slavery or white supremacists. I would hazard a guess that most people don't even know who or what is being represented by the monuments.

Most people have contradictory values and believe that all their causes are the most moral and just. Some people just need to be offended all the time, and they seem to be outraged that everyone around is not offended too.

Most people are probably too self-centered to care about other people's causes and they see those that take up controversial causes as crazy people tilting at windmills.

That's a lot of most peoples. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't change reality.

That's a lot of most peoples. Ignorance may be bliss, but it doesn't change reality.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree. Whether it is willful ignorance of one keeping their proverbial blinders on or just straight up, "Damn, I never knew that" Ignorance does change reality, because it changes our perception of events. Now, I'm not just being disagreeable, because I believe I do get the gist of what you are saying. Which is to say, "Just because you don't believe the civil war was about slavery, doesn't mean it wasn't."

But if I listen to what Mrs P, Lonewisdom, and others are saying and I combine it with the excellent video from AM last post(great video of purposeful revising of history), I can see that changing reality is the goal and a changed reality is their belief. Why does Trump and Mrs P, bring up Jefferson and Washington? Why does Lone think there are all these other reasons for secession.

Obfuscation and muddying of the water breed ignorance and allows people to exist in realities where the slave owners were bad, but they weren't evil. They weren't like Hitler or anything that bad. I mean, Washington and Jefferson prove that you can own slaves and still fight for freedom, right??

One thing that I can say about bringing up the founding fathers is that the well of educating our youth with willful ignorance certainly goes deeper than the Civil War and ending of slavery.

And its weird how it comes out right?

Here I am a Black man, descendant of slaves in America. A Marine. A person that stands to the National Anthem. And because White people, mostly conservatives are losing their collective minds at the idea that a man won't stand for the anthem, the TRUTH about the anthem comes out. There is a hidden verse in there that celebrates the slaughtering of individuals "hirelings and slaves" that truly were fighting for ACTUAL freedom... from slavery.

They bred ignorance into me from my childhood up until my late 30's. And it did change my reality of what that song was about. So did the truth. Now that I know what the song is truly about, I'm not over sensitive, but I am knowledgeable and that song can never be a song of freedom... for me. Maybe for others.

Ignorance can be used to shape our truths and our beliefs and that's basically what creates our reality. And that allows me to make a final dig at conservatism, because this is what separates the mentality. The further left you go the more likely you are going to be able to take in that new information, apply it, and allow it to change your reality. The more conservative you are, the opposite happens. That new information is over looked, set aside, so that the former/current reality can remain.

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Kinda sounds familiar to me. I guess bullheadedness springs eternal.

Just like that, huh? Not a thought in either of your heads that may suggest that a definitive (read this or you're stupid) reading list on the Civil War by Ta-Nehisi Coates may be quite WOKE and not at all OBJECTIVE? Do guys actually enjoy being useful idiots?

Thanks for the book recommendations to get rid of the stupid that surrounds the Civil War. I did a lot of reading about that war in the late 1980s and early 90s, back when I was living close to the battlefields. It mildly surprised me that Lee's actions at Gettysburg, the generally acknowledged turning point of the war, had a lot of controversy among historians. Did he or did he not lose the war due to faulty thinking?

Another point had to do with speculation about if the South had won. Today it seems logical that there would have been two countries, the USA and the CSA, but considering that Lee's goal was to capture Washington DC, it very well could have turned out to be only the CSA. Other supporting evidence includes the South's prewar stance that it wanted total capitulation from the North, not any kind of compromise.

Kinda sounds familiar to me. I guess bullheadedness springs eternal.

Just like that, huh? Not a thought in either of your heads that may suggest that a definitive (read this or you're stupid) reading list on the Civil War by Ta-Nehisi Coates may be quite WOKE and not at all OBJECTIVE? Do guys actually enjoy being useful idiots?

Oh. Iâ€™m sorry. Was that the only book on the list? I apologize. And, if you take issue with the facts in that particular book, what are those issues?